Workmen's advocate., 1887-02-12
STAR Ct AMBER TACTICS. Argument Of Counsel for the New Haven Boycottcr> in reply 10
 the state"

HN i''loN llS hll'INolillS d ShC mcnt embodied in the "nerendants' Reply to the Brief for the State" contains the gist of the defence against the "odious engine of oppres- Slon, the "conspiracy Iaw," which shc proprietor of the boycottcd Jotr~ Hal aod toaricr, through hls lawyer, cndcavored to have the State prosti- tute itself to enforce against men who violated no law
 In this cause the counsel for the State and the accused exchanged briefs on the evening of January 25th, So far as the particular arguments contained in the brief for the State are concerned we do not feel called upon to reply in print, and to reply in kind would necesstate larger admiXture of denunciatory matter than would be appropriate to an inquiry of this sort. But some of the premises or grounds from which the arguments proceed are so novel and curious for this age as to be worthy of attention.
 It seems to be assumed throughout that if the accused combined to do any acts that would inconvenience the prose cut0rs, or reduce the income they other wise might have received, the accused are guilty, whether in so doing they violated any law or not In other words, the assumption seems to be that the de- fanIuntu op ,,p1,,inoJ3 pIi have done no legal wrong-they are to be punished criminally because they are lnconvenlent persons.
 But the counsel for the State have not left Us to inference in ascertaining the ground of their argument. On page 21 of their brief they say:
 It is moi necessary that the unlawful act tO be done should be such as to lay the foundation ot an action Tor damages, when done"
 Tn criminal law, the offense is in the comb- nation, and no overt act Is necessary to @Onsti- tutc it.H
 Undoubtedly the criminal olfense is in the combination or agreement, but men enter combinations with reference to some object or end. The mere fact of combination is without any legal signifi- canoe whatever It is the act or acts agreed to be done, either as ends or means, that gives to the combination the element of criminaiity. Combination is the largest factor in modern life. Men combine in the pursuit of the most be- neiicent ends. Modern civilization has been defined as the combination of man kind to resist and overcome the forces of nature in the struggle for existence. Our learned friends may find criminalty here; but they should heed the admonition of Burke, that you cannot draw an indict- ment against whole people.
 It is, then, the act or acts agreed to be done that stamps the combination with it's quality, whether criminal or other wise. Of course the acts need not be done. If the agreement is unlimited in overt acts. there k no occasion to explore the realm of chaos in search of weapons with which to punish the offenders
 In our brief we have c0ntended that the true rule is, that the act or acts | agreed to be done, either as ends or means, should be such that if done they would constitute a crime, and that other wise a combination or agreement to do them is not a criminal conspiracy. To rehearse here the arguments and author ities bearing upon this point would be l simply tedious. and we forbear.
 The position of the counsel for the State is this: The acts agreed to be | done need not be criminal. {. C.. of such a nature that the person or persons doing l them would become amenable to a crim- l inal sanction. They need not be such that if directed toward private person, and causing him losses, the law would 1 give him civil action for damages-and l yet two or more persons entering into such an agreement are conspirators, and may be punished for a criminal con spiracy.
 In simpler phase the proposition is this: Several may be punished for q criminal conspiracy if they merely agree to do an act which, if actually done by one, would be neither a crime nor a civil injury,
 In it's baldest form the proposition is this A man may be punished crimi nally, though he has violated no law.
 There was a time when q proposition like this would not have given such q shock to the intelligence and conscience as it does now. The court of Star Cham Der would have approved it. Hudson an eminent practitioner in that court, ir his Treatise, referred to in our brief says, Section 1, it is
 l ''assuredly no matter of necessity to publish 1 the reasons of the judgment of the law. ol | apices or fcti0neS iuris tu the multitude, wh, ! are apt t0 furnish themselves with shifts tc ! cloak their wickedues, rather than to gain uu 1 derstandiug to further the government of th, ! Commonwealth: for surely few men would b, | ruinated by dishonest means. if men knew no | how h cover their dishonesty mGer some cove l If law or justice.
 The doctrine for which our friends contend still fingered in the courts, not withstanding the abolition of the Stal Chamber. In the case of the King vs